I've been researching this very question with a US CoS member who shares the same passion for history as myself. And our thorough investigations have concluded that that really WASN'T any codified religion called Satanism before 1966.

There were various groups who have been mentioned as "Devil worshipers", mainly in France during the late 1800's. But the actual evidence for these groups is scant, to say the least.

I agree with reprobate that the onus of proof is on those who claim there were Satanic groups pre-1966. Simply say, "Ok, come up with some actual names." They'll come out with all the usual favourites; The Knights Templars, Abbe Boulan, the Cathers, the Hell Fire Clubs, the Bogomils, Aleister Crowley etc., etc. If you're interested in the subject, check out these sorts of people and see that any claims that they were Satanists is total rubbish.

But to be honest, I'd suggest saving your time and simply not dealing with such people. All the people that I've encountered that bring up such people as "proof" that Anton LaVey didn't originate Satanism are "Satanists" who demean LaVey and refuse to give credit where credit is due. Their usual opening line is, "While I appreciate the influence Anton LaVey has had on Satanism..." and when they come up with this sort of line, I stop talking to them. The evidence is there for everyone to see and if they haven't bothered to research the topic then there's no point in proceeding any further. They've obviously made up their own minds, despite the lack of evidence, have blatantly obvious agendas, so I let them get on with it.

Same old shit, with not even a nice different package... People are becoming more and more lazy and/or lame with the decades.

My take on the Temple of Shit is that they are practicing "Egyptian Christianism", and are in no way related to Satanism.

From what I've read and heard, I beleive (yes: the infamous B word) that Her Doktor was actually quite proud of his uncanny competence and abilities as a "con man". I don't see why people would have a problem with that. I would never refute that assertion, even to a "detractor" or a "wannabe" -- it would be a defamation.

You can't deal with that fact, then don't. Nobody asked them to interest themselves with Satanism or the Church of Satan in the first place. Solipcism and stupidity really are sins!

Remember that article in "Satan Speaks" regarding the Devil as the Father of Lies?...

And what's this with the title selling and real world accomplishments?

People seem to think, feel or beleive that they have a say on how the Church of Satan should administrate itself. They don't. As for "real world accomplishments", people seem to equate that with a large bank account...

Most seem to forget that titles are bestowed by administration (Magus Gilmore) at their leisure, not upon request or bought. So what's with this silly argument about selling titles?...

Furthermore, though I'm not the most interactive person on this board, and though I don't associate with people on this board on-line or off-line, I am a member of the Church of Satan and have been for quite some time now. I have also had the privilege and pleasure to have administrative responsibilities within the Church of Satan which has put me in constant contact with Magus Gilmore for a couple of years, and I don't remember of any time or occasion where the amount stached in my bank account were a topic of interest to him or the Church of Satan. Money was never an issue.

"Real world success" doesn't equate with an enormous bank account, though it can. Remember the baker illustration in a "Map for the Misderected"?...

To clarify on this point -- there were solitary witches who believed themselves to be specially empowered by the Devil, just like there are random maniacs today who believe they hear the voice of the Devil. It is conceivable, though I've never heard a report I'd trust, that you might find a number of such people who organized rites and covens in the name of the Devil. The trick is, though, that there was no lasting institution, no tradition, and no principle or philosophy to unify them.

The only one I might -- might -- even remotely concede to having a claim to being an avowed Satanist in a principled sense before 1966 is Aleister Crowley, since he did associate with the image of the Beast of Revelations. But his philosophy and its presentation, such as it was, did not draw on that association to any significant degree, and more importantly, it did not influence the way his organization codified itself.

There are ancient mystery cults that had a great deal in common with Satanism, especially the Mystery of Dionysos -- which still had active lodges operating in later Roman times. There is no line of continuity from them that extends to our own era, however.

I will not go into the details of how I discovered this shithead, since some of them are out of the scope of this discussion, but I will say that he is an even bigger liar than these emails demonstrate. I was the one who contacted him. I was well aware that the correspondence wouldn't amount to anything intelligient or worthwhile, but I kept it up mainly for my own amusement. This took place more than two months ago, and I haven't emailed him since.

_________________________Some boys grow up into men who can look at themselves in the mirror in the morning, and others just go along with the crowd, forgetting after a while that they ever had a choice. ---Roger Ebert

The reason I ask is that I've seen a few posts lately, to the effect of, "I went out of my way to amuse myself by engaging with an idiot spouting incorrect opinions by representing the Satanic perspective".

And how that engagement is initiated is important, because we do, after all, have a rule:

"Don't give your opinion unless you are asked."

... And that includes contacting people because of their web sites for the purposes of making fun of them. It doesn't reflect well.

Of course, I don't know the specific details of your contact with this person; it's just an opportunity for me to make a general remark for us all to keep in mind when dealing with poseurs.

Quote:The reason I ask is that I've seen a few posts lately, to the effect of, "I went out of my way to amuse myself by engaging with an idiot spouting incorrect opinions by representing the Satanic perspective".

When you argue with an idiot, he is usually doing the same.

_________________________If people had wings, they would die on their backs, buzzing around in little circles.-Uncle Fester, "Silent Death"

I'd tend to agree, Reprobate. I'm sorry to get all high-horsey on those who have been doing this, but I think it is a waste of time to deliberate seek out detractors' websites and try to engage them in an argument. It's like deliberately going into a forest where you know all you'll find are poisonous mushrooms and wads of leeches, when you could just as easily journey through a meadow where you might find tasty tubers and butterflies. That might be fun once or twice, but really, you're probably wasting their time and poking in their lair in ways you'd hate if the shoe was on the other foot, and really, life is too short to always surround yourself with hostile foes and bellicose opposers without a true purpose in mind.

When I've ended up in the debates I mentioned, it was because I was already in neutral ground, I expressed a view or refuted something that was blatantly wrong, and people came out of the woodwork to ask questions or make remarks. But, I don't usually see the value into going into explicitly and obviously hostile territory to toss around the mud.

There is something to be said for venturing into hostile or opposing territory as a spy or observer, and perhaps stirring the pot slowly and subtly, but that approach requires a scalpel rather than a baseball bat.

_________________________
"Gentlemen, the verdict is guilty, on all ten counts of first-degree stupidity. The penalty phase will now begin."--Divine, "Pink Flamingos."

Those letters are pretty funny. Note how he got bored with you once you'd torn his logic apart. At any rate I can't see what's really accomplished by arguing with people like that. You can't make them see "the light" (or in this case, darkness) of what Satanism is about. And honestly I wouldn't want too! The CoS does not need people like that!But it is amusing. And the frightening part is his organization really COULD be here 20 years from now...a sucker is born every minute! After all, that's how a certain "Temple" stays in business

As long as suckers are being born and they keep the donnations and offering flowing toward the Unholy Temple, it would be nice to have it in bussines for even more than 20 years.I once had an ideea, I still have it but I put it on "Hold" as I have more important bussines first, that idea was to invent a religion suitable to every idiot ...and all this just because I found out that even little xtian churches get lots of cash from their loyal followers. Of course that the funds are managed by the unholy priest wich would use it "to the good of the church" ...and it is in the church's best interest that it's unholy father get everything he wants. Just imagine ...how can he preach the word of god without a new sports car?